Marcelo Claure, Town Hall Meetings, New Family Share Pack Plan, Unlimited Individual Plan, Discussion Thread

[WiWavelength]

Not sure what you mean people like me. I personally have thought the industry would move to this formate sooner and have be consistently fine with it. I am anti-net neutral, as from my point of view all it does is uses force to shift profits from pipe to content creators...

 

Seriously, who are you?  Has former SBC CEO Ed Whitacre retired to Phoenix?  Ain't no way they're gonna use "mah pipes" for free.

 

http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2005/10/5498-2/

 

Your envy of Big Content, which often is ephemeral -- see the likes of AOL Instant Messenger and MySpace, is ridiculous.  Your desire for Big Cable/Carrier/Operator to make end users pay once for service but to make Big Content pay multiple times to deliver and zero rate data also is ridiculous.  Whatever, hey, you get free candy out of the deal, so you are placated.

 

AJ

[dedub]

*breaks out the popcorn*

[utiz4321]

Seriously, who are you? Has former SBC CEO Ed Whitacre retired to Phoenix? Ain't no way they're gonna use "mah pipes" for free.

 

http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2005/10/5498-2/

 

Your envy of Big Content, which often is ephemeral -- see the likes of AOL Instant Messenger and MySpace, is ridiculous. Your desire for Big Cable/Carrier/Operator to make end users pay once for service but to make Big Content pay multiple times to deliver and zero rate data also is ridiculous. Whatever, hey, you get free candy out of the deal, so you are placated.

 

AJ

Wow. That is a rant. The question is who should pay for the added capex required to meet consumers growing content demand. It is not as open and shut a case that content providers should bear no cost in order to have their content delivered to the consumer. Further, it is not a decision that you or I on a thread have any ability to pretend we know the answer.

 

What I think is a reasonable approach is to let consumer decide.

 

You complain about being stuck with very little choice in terms of providers and then advocate for a policy that deprives providers the ability to offset the capital costs of meeting the demands of consumer. Higher capex, lower revenue means higher returns to scale which in turn means larger companies and fewer choices. Net neutrality will mean fewer ISP choices.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nexgencpu]

Wow. That is a rant. The question is who should pay for the added capex required to meet consumers growing content demand. It is not as open and shut a case that content providers should bear no cost in order to have their content delivered to the consumer. Further, it is not a decision that you or I on a thread have any ability to pretend we know the answer.

What I think is a reasonable approach is to let consumer decide.

You complain about being stuck with very little choice in terms of providers and then advocate for a policy that deprives providers the ability to offset the capital costs of meeting the demands of consumer. Higher capex, lower revenue means higher returns to scale which in turn means larger companies and fewer choices. Net neutrality will mean fewer ISP choices.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You do realize that these companies have very little overhead once the infrastructure is in place in comparison to the massive profits they make, none of these cable companies are in dire straits, and instead of actually innovating in any way shape or form, they decide to add a toll charge to pass through a bridge they constructed with limited approved routes.

 

You truly believe the cable companies will use they're new found profits to innovate?! Ha!

[utiz4321]

You do realize that these companies have very little overhead once the infrastructure is in place in comparison to the massive profits they make, none of these cable companies are in dire straits, and instead of actually innovating in any way shape or form, they decide to add a toll charge to pass through a bridge they constructed with limited approved routes.

 

You truly believe the cable companies will use they're new found profits to innovate?! Ha!

What I am saying is something different. In this discussion many people have complained about the number of ISP choices they have. Why are there so few? Capex and regulation makes it prohibitively expensive for new entrants. Capex is driven by content consumption and it is not obvious they shouldn't flip part of the bill.

 

I don't know what the opex is of cable companies, but it isn't insignificant in the wireless industry.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[greenbastard]

Wow. That is a rant. The question is who should pay for the added capex required to meet consumers growing content demand.

The customers are paying. They've always paid and will continue to pay for it. First it was price increase, and now its tiered data. Comcast, Verizon FiOS, and At&t u-verse now sell home internet with a 300 GB limit. Companies cannot claim amounting capex from increased Internet usage if all a customer can use is 300 GB before they are charged overages. "Growing Capex" is an outplayed excuse now that Home Internet is tiered in many places. If the current market price doesn't cover costs, then that's on the IP companies for being stupid and not increasing prices or adopting a tiered data.

 

What these companies are doing now is pure greed. Can you blame them for trying to find new sources of revenue? No. But not at the costs of breaking Net Neutrality. The internet should be an open and fair platform for everyone, regardless of usage, business, or ideas. Innovation has always come from the small guys pushing the big guys to try new things. What T-Mobile and Verizon want to do will cause that to end. I know if Sprint started making Google Music unlimited, I would switch from Spotify in a heartbeat and not bother with new and emerging services if they weren't part of an unlimited tier.

[utiz4321]

The customers are paying. They've always paid and will continue to pay for it. First it was price increase, and now its tiered data. Comcast, Verizon FiOS, and At&t u-verse now sell home internet with a 300 GB limit. Companies cannot claim amounting capex from increased Internet usage if all a customer can use is 300 GB before they are charged overages. "Growing Capex" is an outplayed excuse now that Home Internet is tiered in many places. If the current market price doesn't cover costs, then that's on the IP companies for being stupid and not increasing prices or adopting a tiered data.

 

What these companies are doing now is pure greed. Can you blame them for trying to find new sources of revenue? No. But not at the costs of breaking Net Neutrality. The internet should be an open and fair platform for everyone, regardless of usage, business, or ideas. Innovation has always come from the small guys pushing the big guys to try new things. What T-Mobile and Verizon want to do will cause that to end. I know if Sprint started making Google Music unlimited, I would switch from Spotify in a heartbeat and not bother with new and emerging services if they weren't part of an unlimited tier.

If you look at the industry the wireless customers aren't paying enough to cover the capex and opex requirements to sustain four players. That is why we have two "sick men" in the wireless industry.

 

It isn't pure greed. Shipping companies do the exact same thing. If you are a company and you are willing to pony up the dough your wares get to your customers faster than some mom and pop shop. Yet, there isn't this complaining about how unfair it is to the little guy that Amazon can ship stuff fast because they can afford to pay and others can't.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[greenbastard]

If you look at the industry the wireless customers aren't paying enough to cover the capex and opex requirements to sustain four players. That is why we have two "sick men" in the wireless industry.

 

Well, that's on the companies for not charging enough and trying to undercut each other. They shouldn't mess with net neutrality just because of their stupid financial decisions.

It isn't pure greed. Shipping companies do the exact same thing. If you are a company and you are willing to pony up the dough your wares get to your customers faster than some mom and pop shop. Yet, there isn't this complaining about how unfair it is to the little guy that Amazon can ship stuff fast because they can afford to pay and others can't.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Shipping companies charge by size/weight and destination...just like Mobile companies charge by Data buckets and coverage. You don't see the USPS charging BOTH the shipper and receiver now do you? No.

 

Your analogy makes no sense.

[tommym65]

Shipping companies charge by size/weight and destination...just like Mobile companies charge by Data buckets and coverage. You don't see the USPS charging BOTH the shipper and receiver now do you? No.

 

Your analogy makes no sense.

 

The difference is that shipping companies charge ONLY the shipper.  And mobile companies charge the recipient, and under net neutrality should charge ONLY the recipient.

 

Greenie is correct, and the analogy absolutely makes no sense.

[WiWavelength]

The question is who should pay for the added capex required to meet consumers growing content demand. It is not as open and shut a case that content providers should bear no cost in order to have their content delivered to the consumer.

I see the ISP charge on my credit card statement every month. Consumers already pay for their Internet access -- and so do content providers. But you act as if content providers are not paying for their Internet access to serve consumers. That is patently untrue. They are paying for their Internet access much like the rest of us. Do you really think that a Spotify data center, for example, has a magically free connection to the Internet to deliver streams to consumers?

 

This is an open and shut case. Both sides already are paying for their Internet access. They do not need to pony up more money for neutral access or preferred access. That is called extortion.

 

AJ

[bigsnake49]

If you look at the industry the wireless customers aren't paying enough to cover the capex and opex requirements to sustain four players. That is why we have two "sick men" in the wireless industry.

 

It isn't pure greed. Shipping companies do the exact same thing. If you are a company and you are willing to pony up the dough your wares get to your customers faster than some mom and pop shop. Yet, there isn't this complaining about how unfair it is to the little guy that Amazon can ship stuff fast because they can afford to pay and others can't.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Actually the consumer pays for faster shipping. If I buy something from Apple and I want it shipped overnight, I pay extra for the privilege.

If I want to ship something to my sister and I want it shipped overnight, then I pay for the privilege.

[utiz4321]

I see the ISP charge on my credit card statement every month. Consumers already pay for their Internet access -- and so do content providers. But you act as if content providers are not paying for their Internet access to serve consumers. That is patently untrue. They are paying for their Internet access much like the rest of us. Do you really think that a Spotify data center, for example, has a magically free connection to the Internet to deliver streams to consumers?

 

This is an open and shut case. Both sides already are paying for their Internet access. They do not need to pony up more money for neutral access or preferred access. That is called extortion.

 

AJ

It is called a two sided market. Content providers can't exist without ISPs and ISPs can't exist without content providers. If you are fine with crappy ISP choices fine, use the government to force profits to flow to content providers. If you are not, like me, let the market figure out where the profits can go.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[greenbastard]

It is called a two sided market. Content providers can't exist without ISPs and ISPs can't exist without content providers. If you are fine with crappy ISP choices fine, use the government to force profits to flow to content providers. If you are not, like me, let the market figure out where the profits can go.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If we were to let the market figure itself out without any form of regulation, we would all have Bell Wireless branded phones and only have Standard Oil branded gas stations throughout the U.S.

[utiz4321]

If we were to let the market figure itself out without any form of regulation, we would all have Bell Wireless branded phones and only have Standard Oil branded gas stations throughout the U.S.

Actually that is not accurate. ma bell was created by regulation. The break up of standard oil came after its market share started to slip. It also led to higher oil prices because, surprise, regulators didn't figure the optimal size of an oil company.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bigsnake49]

If you look at the industry the wireless customers aren't paying enough to cover the capex and opex requirements to sustain four players. That is why we have two "sick men" in the wireless industry.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

The current situation is because one of the sick patients decided they will forego profits for market share and the the other followed for competitive reasons. Both of them have ungodly amounts of debt that have to be serviced.

[greenbastard]

Actually that is not accurate. ma bell was created by regulation. The break up of standard oil came after its market share started to slip. It also led to higher oil prices because, surprise, regulators didn't figure the optimal size of an oil company.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh, its accurate. Bell Telephone was broken up by regulation due to them dominating a market that had very little competition (well technically they settled, but they saw the writing on the wall). Due to Ma Bell's break up, companies such as Sprint were able to thrive in the long-distance market and today provide another fine option for wireless consumers.

 

And the break up of Standard Oil wasn't done to lower prices. It was done to stop one company from controlling an entire market. It was done to stop a company that had a history of undercutting competitors for the sole purpose of putting them out of business and growing their own share. Could it been done better? Sure, but it was a necessary move in order to protect consumers in the long run.

 

But if you want to get into an argument that Monopolies are good for society, then that's a whole other argument. Anti trust laws are here to protect consumers and now that Internet is considered a utility, Interet traffic should have a level playing field, no matter what on-line businesses have to sell, buy, collect or distribute.

[utiz4321]

The current situation is because one of the sick patients decided they will forego profits for market share and the the other followed for competitive reasons. Both of them have ungodly amounts of debt that have to be serviced.

Right. But the question is why? The answer is that both sick companies have networks that don't allow them to charge the as much as the healthy players because they aren't as good of products. Again why? Because the cost of a national network is pretty much the same weather you have 50 million customer or 100 million customers The pressure on wireless providers to invest in their networks to keep up with the consumer demand for content is also similar, this means the returns to scale are high. High returns to scale means fewer players.

 

Given that neither, content or ISPs can exist without each other the market is a two sided one. Which means costs and profits are most efficiently spread between the two. ISPs argue they are being stuck with most of the costs ( which increases returns to scale) and what content providers to cover some of the capital costs. Are they right? That depends on the consumer, in any case the anti-net neutrality case isn't with out its merits and I am supportive of it.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[utiz4321]

Oh, its accurate. Bell Telephone was broken up by regulation due to them dominating a market that had very little competition (well technically they settled, but they saw the writing on the wall). Due to Ma Bell's break up, companies such as Sprint were able to thrive in the long-distance market and today provide another fine option for wireless consumers.

 

And the break up of Standard Oil wasn't done to lower prices. It was done to stop one company from controlling an entire market. It was done to stop a company that had a history of undercutting competitors for the sole purpose of putting them out of business and growing their own share. Could it been done better? Sure, but it was a necessary move in order to protect consumers in the long run.

 

But if you want to get into an argument that Monopolies are good for society, then that's a whole other argument. Anti trust laws are here to protect consumers and now that Internet is considered a utility, Interet traffic should have a level playing field, no matter what on-line businesses have to sell, buy, collect or distribute.

Again ma bell was created by regulation. So that regulation was required to fix a problem created by regulation isn't a convincing case for regulation.

 

In the standard oil case, If you are going to argue that higher prices are better for consumer welfare I don't know what to say that.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[radem]

Given that neither, content or ISPs can exist without each other the market is a two sided one. Which means costs and profits are most efficiently spread between the two. ISPs argue they are being stuck with most of the costs ( which increases returns to scale) and what content providers to cover some of the capital costs. Are they right? That depends on the consumer, in any case the anti-net neutrality case isn't with out its merits and I am supportive of it.

You do realize that customers pay for their bandwidth and the content providers pay for their bandwidth right?  That is already both sides paying.  I am not sure how you are arguing for content providers getting in bed with ISP's to limit customer choice while increasing ISP profit is good for the customer.  If the pricing that is already being charged to the content providers and the customers is not sufficient to cover the costs of operating their network, they can raise the price or cut their operating costs.

 

Violating the spirit and in some cases the letter of the law of Net Neutrality as passed by the FCC while screwing the customer certainly does not help the customer.

[utiz4321]

You do realize that customers pay for their bandwidth and the content providers pay for their bandwidth right? That is already both sides paying. I am not sure how you are arguing for content providers getting in bed with ISP's to limit customer choice while increasing ISP profit is good for the customer. If the pricing that is already being charged to the content providers and the customers is not sufficient to cover the costs of operating their network, they can raise the price or cut their operating costs.

 

Violating the spirit and in some cases the letter of the law of Net Neutrality as passed by the FCC while screwing the customer certainly does not help the customer.

It doesn't "screw" customers. It is about how profits are arranged in a two sided market.

 

Look, my basic argument is this. The wireless industry, under what amounts to a pretty much net neutral conditions, seems big enough at the national level for 3 players or maybe even just two. Just look at how many years profits have been dominated by the big two. Why is that? Capex and opex cost are high, this favors scale. What is the driver of these cost, not telephony but ISP driven by the exponential growth in content demand. Given that this is a two sided market (ISP and content together and only together deliver a product which is consumable) there is a open question as to how much of those costs should be distributed where and how consumers would prefer this distribution (i.e. Would consumer prefer more ISP choices or more Netflix imitators). This is better worked out by the market.

 

If consumer prefer more wireless ISP providers the shift in profits means more national wireless carriers will be viable. If you favor net neutrality you are saying you are in favor of using the government to make sure the market supports fewer ISPs choices than consumers want. That to me doesn't makes any kind of sense.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[radem]

Look, my basic argument is this. The wireless industry, under what amounts to a pretty much net neutral conditions, seems big enough at the national level for 3 players or maybe even just two. Just look at how many years profits have been dominated by the big two. Why is that? Capex and opex cost are high, this favors scale. What is the driver of these cost, not telephony but ISP driven by the exponential growth in content demand. Given that this is a two sided market (ISP and content together and only together deliver a product which is consumable) there is a open question as to how much of those costs should be distributed where and how consumers would prefer this distribution (i.e. Would consumer prefer more ISP choices or more Netflix imitators). This is better worked out by the market.

 

If consumer prefer more wireless ISP providers the shift in profits means more national wireless carriers will be viable. If you favor net neutrality you are saying you are in favor of using the government to make sure the market supports fewer ISPs choices than consumers want. That to me doesn't makes any kind of sense.

For the past 25 years or so, internet providers have been able to make money by providing access to the internet without these gimmicks. The ones that could not were forced out of business by their owners and creditors.

 

There always has been a lot of wireless and wired internet providers.  There isn't some magic number of 2 or 3 who can make money in this industry.  I am not sure where you get that idea.  Where I live in the Chicago Suburbs with a quick search i found that there are 2 wired internet providers to my house, 4 fixed wireless providers (WISPs) that provide service to my house, 14 business internet providers that provide services to businesses and offices near my house, several satellite providers, 4 large mobile telephone providers, 10 or so alternate carriers that ride on one of the big 4 mobile telephone networks, and numerous other smaller internet providers.

 

Mobile telephone companies are now basically mobile wireless internet provider companies (WISPs) with some complex legacy equipment for voice and text messaging.  They operate on limited shared wireless bandwidth and large numbers of cell "towers".

 

ISPs are perfectly capable of making money the way they always have.  They can sell companies and customers a connection to the internet for a fair price that they can make money at and customers are willing to pay.  If they cannot survive in this model, they can go out of business and have their assets sold off to some other company who can run that business properly.  This is how capitalism works when operating in a regulated field.  You cannot just make up new ways of making money that violate government regulations.

[dnicekid]

Smh....

Both sides have good arguments, What happens when someone signs an exclusive deal??? As in only this carrier has access just on a whim Google and sprint hook up???? It's a crazy thought but if big companies get involved this net thing could get real ugly quick.

 

As far as the government goes they are usually bought out by lobbyist.. These so called "wins" for us usually lays the groundwork for the company to thrive in a different way at a later date..

[RAvirani]

Not sure if this is the right place to put this but I just thought that the times sure have changed with Verizon now willing to buy out your contract and giving bonus data to switch!

 

http://flip.it/voAfc

[greenbastard]

Again ma bell was created by regulation. So that regulation was required to fix a problem created by regulation isn't a convincing case for regulation.

 

Well, the same regulation that broke them up led to the emergence of companies such as Sprint. So if you ask me, its one hell of a convincing argument.

In the standard oil case, If you are going to argue that higher prices are better for consumer welfare I don't know what to say that.

Go back and read. Standard Oil wasn't split to reduce prices. I stated that clearly. The price increase was going to happen eventually, break up or not. Standard Oil was undercutting competitors in order to make them bleed and fold. Once all competitors were gone, prices were going to go back up. It was inevitable.

 

What the government did was stop one single company from controlling the entire oil industry. Had they left them intact, Standard Oil would have had the ability of establishing prices at their own discretion, reduce production to inflate market prices, and even sell poorly refined oil since there would be no competition to compete with better quality.

[mozamcrew]

I guess I'm OK with what TMUS is doing from a legal perspective, even though I also think it's a back-door anti-consumer ploy to drive up what their customers are paying, just like most of their so-called Uncarrier campaign. They don't own any content themselves, and thus they aren't leveraging their position as the ISP to disadvantage competing content. Also, any company that wants to install a CDN server (content distribution node/network) in a TMUS data center can avail themselves of this preferential treatment.

 

My argument has always been that the solution to this mess isn't so-called net neutrality regulation, it's getting telcos out of the content business. That way, you eliminate the incentive to give their own content special treatment.